This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the current system—Xwing328(Talk) 01:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keeping the "Appearances" and "Sources" section separate looks silly, and I feel this should be changed. Hence the consensus track thread and all. I'll explain my proposal in simple, short terms to avoid misunderstandings. --Imp 17:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
How does the whole "Appearances" deal work today?"
In-universe material is put under the "Appearances" header of an article. Reference material is put under "Sources."
What's wrong with that?
Not only does excessive sectioning look silly in short articles; the "Sources" section today simply means "mentioned in this reference book," which I feel does not warrant a separate section. Nor are the mentions in reference material actual sources; we have footnotes for that.
What are you proposing?
It's all very simple: make "Sources" a subsection of "Appearances" under the header "Reference material."
Making an OOU section a subsection of a collection of IU materials doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me. And good grief, I don't think it looks remotely bad either. Even in short articles. Wildyoda 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
With Wildyoda. Plus my comments below. —Xwing328(Talk) 00:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Too much trouble fitting all the reference books into an actual in-universe timeline. Appearances should be for actual story appearances, and sources for explaining the object of the article in question. VT-16 16:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Per Silly Dan and VT-16. Adamwankenobi 21:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Some would argue that we should only be citing sources that the article itself references, in which case the References for footnoting would be sufficient.
I would agree with a modified version of this. First, the references section would have to look cleaner and less like footnotes – i.e., the font would have to be the same size as the rest of the text. Also, an "Additional Appearances" section could list sources not used in the article. This would not only provide a way to show how often the subject has actually appeared, but may also indicate material that needs to be integrated in the article (something which the current system doesn't allow for). Sarendipity (Talk to me) 06:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge "Appearances" and "Sources" without seperate headersEdit
Having them split is an artificial distinction, since the difference between in-universe and out-of-universe materials is fuzzy, if it exists at all (Is Galaxy Guide 1 a reference book or the story of Voren Na'al's quest to find the truth about the Heroes of Yavin? Are the vignettes in The Thrawn Trilogy Sourcebook somehow different from the stories in Tales from the Mos Eisley Cantina?). With our sourcing policy now adding a "References" section for our footnotes to each article regardless of in-or-out-of-universe status, it makes sense now more than ever to quit making that distinction.
What order should we put them in, in this case? —Silly Dan(talk) 22:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Aside from aforementioned problems, this would be my main objection to that as well. There isn't as clearly a defined timeline with source material, so it could not be blended nicely into the currently chronologically listed Appearances. Wildyoda 22:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Have separate Appearances and Mentions sectionsEdit
Instead of differentiating by source material's status, differentiate by how that topic is presented. If something is actually present in the context of the book, put it in Appearances; if it is only mentioned offhand, put it in Mentions. This would remove the need for "mention only" templates and make it clear where someone should go for where their favorite thing actually appears.
It sounds reasonable enough, though I'm going to poo-poo the notion of calling it "Reference material". Yeah, it's technically more accurate, but it's too similar to "References", and, really, "Sources" is easier to type and plain looks better - \\Captain Kwenn//— Ahoy! 17:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
There are far more ways to skin a cat than this. I'm going to add some more options; hopefully you don't mind. jSarek 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Whichever way we go, we should keep "Sources" as the name instead of "Reference material," primarily to prevent confusion with "References". Also, let's not throw out the mentions that we have. We need them just for the sake of completeness, and also for the curious users wondering how often this thing actually appears in Star Wars. One thing that needs to be fixed though, is that many articles still have IU material in the OOU "Sources" section, instead of under "Appearances". —Xwing328(Talk) 00:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with keeping the name "Sources" to avoid confusion with "References", regardless of whether it's a heading or subheading. Sarendipity (Talk to me) 06:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.